[John Leland 1789]

I went back and read your post again, and am thinking that you have perhaps taken from my posts that I don't believe in the restoration of Israel (which Chafer did and Ruckman does; I don't know about Harvard[!]). I am in agreement with the general theological positions of Louis Chafer, including that on the future restoration of Israel, and firmly believe that Israel will be the head and not the tail among the nations. I am not a purveyor of British-Israelism, neither were the editors of THINGS TO COME (London, 1894-1915).

[Wallace T.]

You have assumed too much regarding my post. I was merely stating that on this particular point, Dr. Ruckman concurs with people who hold to others views with which he otherwise disagrees. He may have a general agreement with the dispensationalism taught by DTS, but would disagree with their positions on issues like secondary separation, modern Bible translations (DTS professors and graduates tend to prefer the NASB), and their moderate, or “four point”, Calvinism, among others. Dr. Ruckman agrees with the Catholic Church on abortion, but that does not make him a “one-point Catholic”! My point was merely that despite his being very much outside the evangelical or secular mainstream, he realizes that British Israelism is both un-Scriptural and unhistorical, and his reasoning and facts are sound.